I think offiss is right about bin laden being marginalized to the point where he's sick, tired and too busy running to worry about planning more attacks. Not that his isn't still capable or won't try again in the future, but holding court with known terror operatives is counter productive to staying hidden.

or maybe bill was a pacifist who refused to do anything serious about any of the attacks on american targets that happened while he was in office :P

clinton launched some missiles that set iraq back about 3 hours, got the spotlight off of him, and then forgot about it.

and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...

great, now you got me talking about clinton. well enlighten me then, how did Saddam threaten us back then (besides clown talk, like his clown info minister)? since when are iran and iraq close buddies? here, hold my WMD. no one's watching. yeah everyone wanted him out, but the situation was NOWHERE near the threat Bush STILL insists it was. you guys dont want to listen to documented evidence, you just want to listen to what this one guy says!

i'm not listening to bush, sorry to disappoint , clinton bombed him, clinton called him a threat many times, but if you're going to put him on a pedestal, i'll challenge it, because, at least in this instance, I don't think its at all justified.

Iran and iraq are not close buddies, but saddam shipped fighters over to iran in the first gulf war, and it wouldn't be surprising if he sent shipments again... he could have paid them, but it'd probably be more of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran is not a close ally of the US as you may have guessed, and wouldn't really need much reason to accept such donations.

scroll up a bit and read all those nice quotes, kerry, hillary, clinton, gore... they all thought he was a serious threat, so continuing to say that only bush thought that way is in blatant disregard of the facts.

i'm not listening to bush, sorry to disappoint , clinton bombed him, clinton called him a threat many times, but if you're going to put him on a pedestal, i'll challenge it, because, at least in this instance, I don't think its at all justified.

yeah i'm not going to argue about clinton, i dont doubt for a fact he said those things, but if he (or anyone else besides bush) decided it was a REAL imminent threat, they would've made sure first, and NOT dismiss our allies and gone it alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

so continuing to say that only bush thought that way is in blatant disregard of the facts.

wow. did you really say that? BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD OF FACTS!

regardless of what whoever believed, this is the only administration who had a big enough agenda with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.

I don't remember Clinton seeking approval from allies or the UN when he bombed Kosovo and Bosnia. And I don't remember him seeking permission when he bombed Iraq because of unsubstantiated rumors of an assassination attempt on former President Bush. But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

regardless of what whoever believed, this is the only administration who had a big enough agenda with iraq to OVERLOOK the need for REAL evidence, risk billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our relationship with our allies around the world. dont disregard THIS fact.

no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. please don't try to pull that kind of crap.

as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and i have never said otherwise.

But this isn't meant to be some anti-Clinton post, because I think he was right in intervening. He might have said it best when he said in 1998 that "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction."

And now, it's like offiss says, the point is to avoid another 9/11. I still can't fully grasp many of the same people who complain that we weren't proactive enough in terms of Bin Laden argue that we should have just taken a wait and see approach with Hussein because he had never actually invaded our soil.

sigh. awfully circular huh? iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. nothing. why do you guys insist it does? there was nothing bubbling, no real evidence of ANY plans (unlike with bin laden). al-qaeda isnt a nation, thats what makes them dangerous. if iraq as a nation attacked us, the entire world would come down on them along with us. if we had stuck only to afghanistan, the world would come down on al-qaeda and afghanistan because there was PROOF there was a relation. none of that exists for iraq. N O N E.

no, that's not what i said at all... please read before firing off reactionary remarks... i said that thinking that bush was alone in his thoughts of an iraqee threat is wrong, as in NOT TRUE. please don't try to pull that kind of crap.

sorry, if i was unclear. 'BUSH = BLATANT DISREGARD TO FACTS' was MY retort to you claiming we disregarded clinton and others thinking saddam was dangerous. i just couldnt believe you used that phrase, because thats exactly what bush did. he blatantly disregarded the FACTS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

as far as the being the only one to decide on acting in a major way, that's true, and i have never said otherwise.

yup, and then he ACTED on that disregard for the truth. thats the difference. cant believe you're comfortable with that.

problem with afghanistan is that a lot of people slipped across into a fairly lawless portion of pakistan that don't really have permission to go in to... but i agree that iraq is completely seperate, its pretty the first instance of a pre-emptive war... whether you feel it was morally justified is a different subject altogether.

and if you think he blatantly disregarded facts, you realize that nearly all of congress agreed that iraq was a threat, they maybe didn't have the facts, cause our intel isn't used to dealing with arab threats and we don't have the networks like we did with the soviets..

its nice that hindsight is 20/20, now to work on that foresight...

you insinuated that bush was acting alone, and then when it was brought up that people supported his position, you ignored it... all i've been saying, is many many people thought he was dangerous... that's it... i don't where this other crap came from.

another quick side note is that, saddam had been found guilty of possessing WMD, and it was up to him to prove they were gone. whether you think we should have gone to war is seperate from whether he was thought of as a threat. but, since you obviously do think it was wrong, just remember, bush was not in any way alone is deciding to invade, kerry was there with him, among many others. If you disagree with the decision, the blame belongs to much more than bush alone.

well man its gotten pretty chaotic. but i dont think anyone ever argued that Bush sucks because he thought Saddam was dangerous. he sucks because he didnt bother to see that he wasn't dangerous ENOUGH (not even a fraction of how dangerous osama is) to brazenly commit our lives, our money and our friends to this war. he IS the commander and chief, and the public, the congress and the soldiers SHOULD be able to trust him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

and saddam had plenty of time to send the good stuff to iran or bury it in the sand (good luck finding that)... but it is strange that you'd argue bush sucks cause he wanted saddam out, but not clinton or kerry or hillary, who (at the time) also thought he was worth going after...